subscription_images_get_instance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether this is a safe read, not what happens on a missing/invalid id, not whether the response is cached or paginated. Repeating the endpoint path adds zero behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The string is short but not concise in any useful sense — the parenthetical is a verbatim duplicate of the text before it, pure redundancy. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose because there is no purpose statement at all.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a resource-fetch endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description must at minimum say what the returned subscription image contains or how it relates to a subscription. It says nothing, leaving the agent unable to judge the result of the call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with all four parameters (id, include, fields_subscriptions, fields_subscriptionImages) documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about id format, the sparse-fieldset semantics, or the relationship-inclusion behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a restatement of the tool name: an HTTP verb plus the same URL path repeated twice in parentheses. It tells the agent this is a GET on /v1/subscriptionImages/{id} but never says what a 'subscription image' resource actually is, nor how it differs from the sibling subscription_images_v2_get_instance. This is close to tautology.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance whatsoever on when to call this instead of alternatives. The sibling list contains subscription_images_v2_get_instance, subscription_images_create_instance, subscription_images_update_instance, and subscription_images_delete_instance, and nothing routes the agent among them. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.